I've just looked into that (and read this (http://www.thestar.com/business/tech...le_online.html)
which is slightly alarming to say the least. I'm now wondering if the information downloaded could be used to fill a new blank chipped card and that is worrying if they captured the pin somehow as well.

As with people, thinness isn't necessary for good looks in phones, IMHO.

I think Apple devices always look good, but I suppose that is subjective.

On the other hand, I don't much worry about looks for a device I'm going to use. My Samsung Galaxy Note 2 is fat and ugly, but it works extremely well and I get a full day out of the battery even when I'm traveling and using it heavily. Even at 2 years old it's snappy and works without any lag. It's simply the best phone I've ever owned and I'm struggling to find the perfect replacement for it this fall.

You seem to be putting a bit too much faith in chip and PIN. Chip and PIN has never been foolproof; no technology is fool proof it's merely about managing/reducing risk. Is chip and PIN better than standard credit cards or nothing? Yes, of course. Is it "hack proof?" Uh, no...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...staurants.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19559124

I don't think Apple Pay will be perfect, nor hack proof, but it is intriguing to me and honestly it does alleviate some elements of risk (e.g. giving other human beings my personal info). But certainly, it won't be perfect either.

Regards

Not sure if the ones I've seen have NFC capability, but I admit, I wasn't looking for it at the time. And would the handheld systems have it? I'd have to assume we'll start seeing those in restaurants somewhere along the line.

If the banks are going to be paying a fee, I guarantee that fee is going to be passed along to the merchants. The banks aren't going to be eating that out of the goodness of their hearts. Given what I've seen so far I don't see this as bypassing the usual visa/mc fees (since your'e still actually using your credit card), so I'd have to believe it'd be a higher fee.

It'll be interesting to see if it works out, but I'm still skeptical that it will. Even with Apple, I'm not sure it's enough of a market penetration that it's going to make much progress. Now, if apple started working on a way to go after the market of people that also have android phones that have NFC capability, that'd definitely increase their pool of people to try to convince retailers it's worth it.

I'm thinking if I get the iPhone 6+ I won't need my iPad for travel.

Thoughts?

I am going to get an iphone 6 or 6 plus with the 64 gb or 128 gb. I am a little peeved the phablet is 100 dollars more but other than that im ok with it. If I can replace my ipad mini with this I would get the 128 gb.

I've been aware of the Cambridge findings since they were released and I've never said Chip and Pin is 100% secure. As a merchant in the UK unlike signature verification, we are covered if the transaction is verified by a PIN and the card turns out to be lost/stolen. As a retailer where we can take �15k ($25k) in a single transaction that's very important. However we take further security precautions than just the pin, we visually examine the card making sure that it was (as far as we can ascertain) issued by a genuine financial institution. Then we look at the chip, has it been tampered with in any way, and isn't connected physically to something else like a computer up the sleeve for example. And finally does the information printed on the front of the card match the information printed on the merchant receipt.

Now if Apple Pay is going to cover us in case of a fraudulent transaction that's great, if not then less great. That very probably won't worry us at the moment as Apple pay may well be limited to the current maximum transaction value of ~�15 in the UK for NFC payments. Apple pay is either going to sink or swim and given the numbers of iPhones that exist it might be a big enough user base to give it a jump start. It's an interesting concept and it might be a secure way forward for payments, if the other US based system MCX doesn't cause too many headaches (retailers who sign up to MCX won't accept other mobile wallets http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0?feedType=RSS).

However what will help it be accepted from a merchant point of view (as I said earlier) is whether the transactions are covered in the case of fraud by: the retailer or the card issuer or the cardholder and the merchant fees. We don't take Amex as the fees are too high and Apple Pay will need to either match or undercut the current fees to make it worth our while. If as a consumer I dispute a transaction, I say I never made the payment and didn't buy the goods in a store what comeback do I have? will Apple Pay be able to prove that a specific phone was used, what will the retailer have to identify the card used above this unique number, possibly nothing? There's also a need to have an NFC equipped terminal to be able to take the payments, these aren't cheap so who's going to pay for them? It could be great but at the moment I'm on the seriously undecided fence.

As long as the merchant is insured for the cost of the fraudulent transaction, I'm not sure that it needs to be that high. If Apple only covers your �2,500 and errors with higher transactions stating you need to go to a traditional card and do your extended due diligence above that mark, most merchants are going to be fine with that. The clerks at higher end places will quickly learn the limit.

The Pay system provides for easier deactivation of cards, means that compromised merchant system can't give hackers millions of good credit/debit card numbers. It means that merchants won't face the spill over issues. How many people are a little nervous using their credit cards at a Target or a Home Depot today

I think Apple has given banks proof that the fraud rate will be lower with their system than traditional credit cards. In exchange for the reduced risk from the Pay system, the banks have probably agreed to give them some fraction of a percent.

I would agree with this sentiment.

I have a Note 2, which is the same 5.5" screen size as the iPhone 6+. It's a passable replacement for my Nexus 7 (7" tablet). I travel with both, though, primarily to extend the battery life on my phone, and together the phone and tablet make a great 2-screen system for working on the road.

I guess the short answer would have been "it depends".

Traitors, back to the dark side, LOL

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/...-announcements

I will have an AT&T Note 3 available in another week.

At 7-10mm, I'm not overly concerned about 1-2mm. As with CPU, I want stuff to work, not measure well.

But I am curious. iPhone6 6.9mm. Android?

For reference, CNet's "Top Android Phones": M8 - 9.4mm, S5 - 8.1mm, Nexus 5 - 8.6mm, Z2 - 8.2mm, Note 3 - 8.1mm - all thicker than the iPhone 5 was two years ago at 7.6mm. (I don't see the Gionee Elife, Vivo X3, et al as viable for US usage.)

Not sure thin is a big deal anymore; at least half of the smartphones I see around me are in some kind of case that makes it a good deal thicker -- I use the "replaces the back" type flip cover which actually adds more thickness on the Note 3 than it did on the note 2 (or does on my Moto G travel phone) and actually find the heavier back on the flip cover an improvement over the thin faux-leather the Note 3 came with out of the box.

I don't get the thin thing, myself. I'd much rather have a big fat phone that gives me a full day's heavy use and a solid chunk of battery life left over to spare.